Mechanisms for supporting positive behaviour in young children
Child A is engrossed in play. With their imagination they act out scenes using their hands and a jumper as props. Concentrate hard enough and you can visualise the imaginary jungle habitat they built for a gorilla family escaping dread pirates. An observation based on Development Matters guidance (Early Education, 2012) would likely categorise the four year old’s play within the 40-60+ months bracket for certain aspects of their Communication & Language, Understanding the World, and Expressive Art & Design development. Further, it is known that Child A’s creativity is part of their unique schema, a stepping-stone to story-scribe development. This is a ‘wow’ moment for Child A. Except it isn’t. It’s circle time.
In the past three minutes Child A has been asked twice to join the group, to sit on their bottom like everyone else, and listen to a story. Like circle time yesterday, and during a number of previous occasions, Child A is not interested and each time their lack of compliance is mentioned the group is disrupted. The scenario becomes increasingly stressful: the practitioner is unable to convince Child A to join them; other children fidget and chatter as their impatience to hear the story grows, and perceiving the negative attention Child A begins to communicate their frustration physically.
This observation demonstrates a grey area practitioners may find themselves. In analysing this particular interaction is Child A learning, albeit not skills the practitioner requires? Do they present behaviour that challenges, one causing a rift between them and the practitioner to the extent that the needs of neither are met and a tipping point reached? Reflections like this divide opinion amongst educational researchers. Bullock & Brownhill (2011) consider classroom routines important to a young child’s development: in refusing to join in Child A is “unlikely to be learning to their full potential” (Bullock & Brownhill, 2011, p. 2).
However there is no statutory requirement for young children to sit on their bottoms or join group activities. The ability to sit is specific to the National Curriculum (DoE, 2014, p. 25) and directed at Year One pupils for their second term. The ability to work in groups, although mentioned within the National Curriculum for Year One (DoE, 2014, p. 18), only becomes a statutory requirement in Year Three (DoE, 2014, p. 40). For young children, MacNaughton, Hughes and Smith argue that classroom routines, such as group times, are “designed to suit teachers, not children.” (MacNaughton, Hughes and Smith, 2007, p. 48). This could suggest Child A is working within their developmental stage, potentially demonstrating characteristics of effective learning as a “unique child” (DoE, 2017, p. 6) with their original actions appropriate and positive.
When considering the overarching spectrum of behaviour that challenges, the personal observation concerning Child A appears trivial. However in demonstrating it’s ambiguity, and without involving the emotive extremes of overtly aggressive behaviour, it an ideal observation to understand the structural challenges posed by defining positive behaviour in young children, and the mechanisms most apt to their support.
A behaviour management policy generally gives clear parameters to behaviour expected within a setting. These parameters aim to remove unpredictable behaviour, through regulation and enforcement, by creating a discourse for what is considered ‘normal’ child behaviour. Conformity to this discourse is required and becomes acceptable. An optimal mode of being and behaving is created (Pires, 2004). Artificially normalising behaviour in this manner requires development to be assessed and measured to ensure age-appropriate conformity and compliance to the policy. This would fall in line with educational practice preferred by developmental theorists such as Piaget and Vygotsky (Aubrey and Riley, 2019), and by the Department of Education (DoE, 2017, p. 7), and in turn a regime of truth is created for the setting, a discourse practitioners accept and make true (Foucault, 2002).
Mechanisms to support this discourse are likely to be predetermined, age-related and focused on the transmission of information from practitioner to young child. They are the indicators of appropriate positive behaviour development required and maintained in ‘normal’ young children.
Using mechanisms in this way is relatable to Foucault’s theory concerning strategies as an act of war (1994): they become a means to an end; their usefulness derived from an ability to gain advantage over an opponent (in this case a young child); and, the capability of depriving them of means to object or retaliate, for example, participation in the moral conversation (Olsson, 2009) concerning their behaviour. The mechanisms are impossible to struggle against (Foucault, 2002) and remove trust, respect and reciprocity (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 2013) from a relationship. Further, with the power for self-determination withdrawn, these mechanisms consider the young child: developmentally needy (Moss, 2009); unable to behave in socially acceptable ways; and subject to adults (MacNaughton, Hughes and Smith, 2007). They support adult intervention and child compliance, enforcing the idea of the practitioner as a person of power and position (Pires, 2004), committing them to “relations of power, not relations of meaning.” (Foucault, 2002, p. 116).
If positive behaviour and the mechanisms to its attainment are bound within lines of control, they limit a young child’s identity to one defined by their behavioural development, when in fact all that is defined is an indication of a young child’s malleability to instruction. This dogmatic approach to behavioural education shines a dim light on the competency of young children as well as practitioner capability.
Challenging this target driven model are the mechanisms supporting positive behaviour where learning is recognised as a nonlinear process, and a young child is considered to be an active agent in their own development (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 2013). Within this example the mechanisms are established on four theories:
- If people are unique and learn best in different ways (EYFS, 2017) the rate at which they learn will also be different (Robinson & Aronica, 2015);
- Learning can “fail to correspond to the calm, continuity image that is normally accredited .” (Foucault, 2002, p. 114);
- Respect “the right of all beings capable of speech and action to participate in the moral conversation.” (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 2013, p. 79); and,
- A child is equal but different (Moss, 2019).
The first two statements consider a constructivist approach to learning. This considers potentialities rather than developmental stages, seeing a young child becoming knowledgeable rather than needing knowledge (Scanlan, 2016). In ‘What is Philosophy?’ Deleuze & Guattari (1994) challenge theories focused on how concepts are created, they consider thought processes to be created through “possible experience on the one hand and through intuition on the other” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 7). Within this, the creation of knowledge has no order, is encouraging of difference and of thinking generatively rather than structurally (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994). In this respect learning becomes multi-layered and multi-directional, a force to break down current knowledge in order to rebuild and formulate something new, because “knowledge is not something static and unchangeable.” (Olsson, 2009, p. 183). Here a young child’s learning takes place through exploration, across planes (lines) of flight (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994) and supportive mechanisms are unrestricted. Rather than the position of enforcer, the practitioner is enabled to be a critically reflective collaborator within the young child’s learning, the questioner of ‘what if?’ scenarios, a provocateur enticing the young child to take lead in the development of their emotional skillset.
Further, understanding what a Child is, through the development of theories iii. and iv., has a practitioner recognise the young child as someone inclusive of capabilities: a whole person able to influence their own lives; control their learning process through their own thoughts and theories, and as someone worth listening to (Moss, 2019, p. 105).
Together these four theories support a nonlinear co-constructive approach that enables mechanisms of support beyond those defined by age-group and control. The approach gives space to understanding the whole child. It is perceptive to their wellbeing, and mindful of its potential to inhibit and enable cognitive processes. Without lines of control depriving practitioner understanding, mental and physical factors can be interlaced within the mechanism making it as unique as the young child it supports. Here an understanding of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and his concept of coping and expressing behaviour (Maslow, 1954) could be added. Consideration to Leuven Scales – created to individual’s experience rather than learning outcomes (Laevers and Declercq, 2018) – may be intertwined. Link these with a young child’s experience: their life outside setting; a love of gorillas and dislike of noise; their favourite jumper knitted by Grandad (who was a pirate), how they fell out of bed in the night and couldn’t get back to sleep. Include their intuition in the specific moment. Entwine these with a reflective practitioner who bases their relationship with a young child on trust, respect and reciprocity. Then the mechanisms to support positive behaviour don’t feedback to policies and stage development. They feedback to the person they matter to most. The child.
The child is engrossed in play. Using their imagination they act out scenes using their hands and a jumper as props. Practitioner A notices, once again, the child is absent from circle time. They look over to see the child captivated by what seems to be gorilla ‘hide and seek’ within their Grandad’s jumper. The child seems tired from a broken night’s sleep. Over the noise of the group and story in hand, Practitioner A quickly asks a colleague to listen in to the child’s play, maybe take some notes and a photo as, fingers crossed, this could be the ‘wow’ moment they were waiting for.
Aubrey, K., & Riley, A. (2019). Understanding & using educational theories (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Bullock, E., & Brownhill, S. (2011). A quick guide to behaviour management in the early years (p. Chapter One). London: SAGE.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is Philosophy?. London: Verso.
Department of Education. (2014). The national curriculum in England Framework document. London. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381344/Master_final_national_curriculum_28_Nov.pdf
Department of Education. (2017). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. London. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/596629/EYFS_STATUTORY_FRAMEWORK_2017.pdf
Early Education (2012). Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). Retrieved 12 January 2020, from https://www.foundationyears.org.uk/files/2012/03/Development-Matters-FINAL-PRINT-AMENDED.pdf
Foucault, M. (2002). Power: The essential works of Foucault 1954-1984 (3rd ed.). London: Penguin.
Laevers, F., & Declercq, B. (2018). How well-being and involvement fit into the commitment to children’s rights. European Journal Of Education, 53(3), 325-335. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12286
MacNaughton, G., Hughes, P., & Smith, K. (2007). Rethinking approaches to working with children who challenge: Action learning for emancipatory practice. International Journal Of Early Childhood, 39(1), 39-57. doi: 10.1007/bf03165947
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Moss, P., Dahlberg, G., & Pence, A. (2013). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care. London: Routledge.
Moss, P. (2019). Alternative narratives in early childhood. Oxon: Routledge.
Olsson, L. (2009). Movement and experimentation in young children’s learning. London: Routledge.
Pires, M. (2014). De-Territorializing the Child : Towards a Theory of Affect in Educational Philosophy and Research (EdD). Montclair State University.
Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2016). Creative schools. London: Penguin Books.
Scanlan, B. (2016). Working conceptually with Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy in relation to children’s artwork. He Kupu: The Word, 4(3), 35-41. Retrieved from https://www.hekupu.ac.nz/article/working-conceptually-deleuze-and-guattaris-philosophy-relation-childrens-artwork